Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education
Volume 2
Number 5 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education
Vol. 2, No. 5 (Winter/Spring 2010)
Article 6
Winter 2010
Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified
Inclusion Classroom Environment
Elizabeth Kirby Fullerton Ph.D.
e.fullerton@unf.edu
Caroline Guardino Ph.D.
caroline.guardino@unf.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie
Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons,
Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Special Education Administration Commons, and the
Special Education and Teaching Commons
Repository Citation
Fullerton, E. K., & Guardino, C. (2010). Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classroom Environment,
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2 (5).
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Journal for Inclusive
Education by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact corescholar@www.libraries.wright.edu.
Fullerton and Guardino: Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classro
Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classroom Environment
Elizabeth Kirby Fullerton and Caroline Guardino
University of North Florida
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how modifying the inclusion classroom impacts
teacher and students’ perceptions of their learning environment. Prior to intervention the teacher was
interviewed providing information about her preferred modifications. Following the intervention the
teacher completed a rating scale and a post interview. The students completed a classroom
environment student survey (CESS), to assess their perceptions of the classroom before, during, and
after modifications were made. Twenty fourth grade students, as well as their teacher participated in
the study. Implications for practitioners and researchers are discussed.
Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classroom Environment
Students and teachers are the experts on their classroom environment. When changes are made
to the classroom (i.e. group and individual learning spaces), understanding how the experts feel about
the changes may influence the overall learning. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact
classroom modifications had on teacher and student perceptions. Additionally, the teacher’s
perceptions of the classroom modifications were examined to determine the acceptability of the
intervention.
The teacher’s use of her classroom environment as a behavior management technique can set
the stage for productive learning (Gazin, 1999). Her perception of that space is an indication of her use
of classroom arrangement as a behavior management tool. The students’ perception of the classroom
Published by CORE Scholar, 2010
1
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 5 [2010], Art. 6
environment provides the teacher with (1) an idea of whether or not the classroom engages them in
learning (Geiger, 2000) and (2) a measure of whether or not she is using the environment effectively.
The classroom environment (i.e. arrangement of furniture, access to materials) is the first step in
creating a well-managed classroom (Kerr & Nelson, 2002). The physical environment refers to the use of
space, arrangement of furniture to promote individual and group learning, as well as availability of
resources and material for students (Dodge & Colker, 1996). Although a quick Internet search can
provide teachers with a myriad of tips about the environment, a dearth of research has been done on
the impact classroom modifications have on the way teachers and students view their learning
environment. After modifications are made, if the teacher sees improvement in student behavior she is
more likely to sustain the modifications that are in place, implement additional modifications, and use
them in future classrooms (Diamantes, 2002; Guardino, 2008).
A limited number of studies have shown that modifications to the classroom environment
positively impact the way in which teachers and students view their classroom. For example, HadiTabassum (1999) evaluated how changes in the classroom environment impacted academic learning for
25 students in the 8th grade considered at-risk for academic failure due to limited English, low-test
scores and socioeconomic status. The study examined if changes to the classroom environment (i.e.
more cooperative group work) altered the students’ attitude toward the class. The findings indicate that
when changes were put in place not only did the students report a more positive attitude towards the
class, but also academic learning improved.
Diamantes (2002) studied students’ perceptions about the classroom environment to guide
teachers in making environmental improvements. Specifically, 1216 sixth to eighth grade science
students were surveyed to differentiate their perception of an ideal environment compared to their
preferred environment. The student responses were used to guide six of twelve teachers to make
changes to the classrooms (six of the twelve were a control group). As with the previous study students
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss5/6
2
Fullerton and Guardino: Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classro
were considered at-risk based on low-test scores, limited English proficiency, and socioeconomic status.
Diamantes stated that the students provided valid information about their preferred and ideal
environtment which helped the teachers make changes to the science classrooms. Student grouping was
one of the four changes made which teachers perceived as improving the satisfaction of the
environment. The researcher stresses that teacher and student satisfaction of their classroom can lead
to improved learning.
Johnson (2006) examined the perceptions of 214 fifth and sixth grade students on their learning
preferences as well as classroom-learning environment. The results indicate that students preferred
group over individual learning which was impacted by their perception of the physical arrangement of
the classroom. Rivera and Waxman (2007) examined 223 fourth and fifth grade students’ perceptions of
their classroom behavior and learning environment. As with the previous studies the students were
considered at-risk due to limited English proficiency as well as socioeconomic status. The study
compared the differences between those students who were faring better academically to those who
were struggling in school. The findings indicate that those who positively perceived their learning
environment were performing better academically than those who did not.
The studies indicate that teachers and students have insight into their classroom environment.
Their views impact, to some extent, their academic learning. Furthermore, teachers can use this
information to make modifications to the environment that will lead to more productive learning.
Despite these findings, previous research has not examined the teacher’s and students’ perceptions of
their classroom before, during and after modifications are put in place. Expanding this line of research
may help refine which modifications have the biggest impact on students’ academic and behavioral
performance. In addition, continued research will enable teachers to effectively use classroom
modifications as a behavior management tool.
Published by CORE Scholar, 2010
3
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 5 [2010], Art. 6
This study specifically addresses the following questions: 1) What are the teacher’s perceptions
of the modifications made to her classroom environment? (2) What are the teacher’s perceptions of the
effectiveness of the modifications on whole class academic engagement and disruptive behavior? (3)
How do the students’ perceptions of their classroom environment change when their classroom is
modified?
Methods
Participants and Setting
The participants were 20 fourth grade students and one teacher in an inclusion classroom
located in an urban area of the southeastern United States. The students were considered at-risk for
academic failure due to low standardized test scores and socio-economic status. The classroom
population reflects that of the school where at least 90% of the students were eligible for free or
reduced lunch. In addition, the school has failed the mandatory statewide testing annually since 2003.
Of the 20 students, one qualified for special education services. In addition, the teacher and principal
reported the students had a higher than expected level of suspensions (in school and out of school) due
to disruptive behavior. This study was conducted during the teacher’s first year of teaching and she
requested additional help to manage her students’ behavior.
Measures
The target behaviors of this study were teacher and student perceptions of their inclusion
classroom environment. The teacher’s perception of her classroom environment was collected through
pre- and post- interviews, as well as completion of the Modification Rating Scale-Teacher (MRS-T). The
students’ perceptions of their classroom environment was collected through a survey.
Pre-intervention interview. The pre-intervention interview consisted of five questions on the
teacher’s perception of where, when, and what types of disruptive behavior occurred in her 1[1]
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss5/6
4
Fullerton and Guardino: Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classro
classroom. The questions also required the teacher to describe how she used various areas in the
classroom throughout the day. Lastly, the teacher identified what she felt was the best academic
learning time for the researchers to observe the classroom and collect data.
Modification Rating Scale-Teacher (MRS-T). The MRS-T was created by the researchers to
reflect both categorization and ranking of the modifications made to the classroom. Classroom
modifications used in the study were grouped into categories. For example, hanging motivational
posters and pasting rules would fall under the category of “visual-auditory stimuli”. Whereas, adding
shelves near teacher’s desk and organizing the supply cabinets would be categorized as “organization”.
Dependent on the number of items in each category, each modification is ranked separately as having
the “greatest” to “least” effectiveness on levels of academic engagement and disruptive behavior. At the
bottom of the scale each of the categories are listed and the teacher assigns an overall ranking. The
teacher’s ranking allowed the researchers to determine her perceptions of what modifications she felt
had the greatest impact on academic engagement and disruptive behavior. The modifications teachers
choose for their classrooms are based on the needs of their specific class as well as the teacher’s
individual preferences, the MRS-T categories and subsequent modifications vary class to class.
Post-intervention interview. The post-intervention interview consisted of opened-ended
questions designed to encourage the teacher to reflect on her experience while participating in the
classroom modification study. The interview measured the acceptability of the intervention by the
teacher. The interviewer, one of the researchers, asked the teacher to discuss : 1) what she liked most,
(2) what she would do differently, (3) would she continue to use the modifications, (3) did her students
benefit, (4) would she recommend the intervention to other teachers, and (5) did the modifications
change her behavior in their classroom?
Student perception survey. Student perceptions of their classroom environment were
measured by a 5- question survey. The students answered questions by circling a smiley or sad face. The
Published by CORE Scholar, 2010
5
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 5 [2010], Art. 6
researchers read the instructions to the students as, “Let’s start by discussing what the faces mean. A
smiley face means what? A sad face means what? Great! Now I will read a question and you circle either
the smiley face or the sad face.” (see Figure 1). A smiley face signified that the student was content with
the specified aspect of their classroom (i.e. group area, desk space). A sad face indicated that the
student was unsatisfied with the specified aspect of their classroom. The researchers administered the
survey three times: at the start of pre-intervention data collection, and then approximately two-days,
and four-weeks after the intervention.
Procedures
Pre-intervention phase. A 30-minute pre-intervention interview was conducted. The teacher
discussed areas where disruptive behavior was a concern, times throughout the day where disruptive
behavior was prevalent, types of disruptive behaviors, ways she utilized various areas in the classroom,
and optimal times for observing disruptive behaviors. After the interview, the researchers observed
whole class and teacher behaviors over a 2-week period. Observations were 15-minutes in length. The
students were administered the student perception survey.
Intervention phase. After pre-intervention behaviors were documented, the researchers met
again with the teacher to decide which classroom modifications she preferred. The teacher expressed
interest in reducing the clutter, reorganizing her desk area, and adding a group space. She was also
concerned with the classroom library that had several containers of books consuming the majority of
the carpet space. Over the course of one Friday afternoon and Saturday morning, while no students
were present, the teacher and researchers completed the classroom modifications. (See the MRS-T for a
list of the classroom modifications.) When the students returned on Monday, they completed the
student perception survey for the second time.
Post-intervention phase. Five weeks after completion of the intervention, the researchers met
with the teacher to complete the MRS-T and the post-intervention interview. Completion of both data
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss5/6
6
Fullerton and Guardino: Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classro
collection materials took approximately 45-minutes. The students completed the student perception
survey for the third and last time.
Results
Teacher’s Perceptions
Pre-intervention interview. The teacher reported that disruptive behaviors typically occurred
when students were placed in dyads or worked in small groups. She stated that morning and after-lunch
work periods were typically the time of day when the students were most disruptive. Disruptive
behavior ranged from speaking without permission, getting out of seat, making unwanted physical
contact, or non-compliance to teacher direction. The teacher explained to the researchers that she had
the student desks arranged in dyads and used this design for both group and individual work periods.
During periods of group work, the students had to rearrange their desks into larger quadrants, which
always resulted in high levels of disruption. She reported that a reading coach used a small table
situated in the back corner of the classroom for individual testing. Although there was a computer table
with two computers, she stated the area was not used because the computers were not working. At the
end of the meeting the researchers and teachers determined the best time to observe the classroom
was during reader’s workshop at 9am, Monday through Thursday.
Modification Rating Scale-Teacher. A total of 16 modifications were made to the classroom. Of
the 16 modifications, four categories were determined: visual-auditory stimuli, organization, personal
and group workspace, and clear pathways. See Table 2 for a summary of the teachers’ perceptions of
which modifications had the greatest to least effect on academic engagement and disruptive behaviors.
Overall, the teacher believed the “personal and group work space” modifications had the
greatest impact on reducing the levels of disruptive behavior in the classroom. Modifications in this
category included providing individual work carrels, adding chair bags (bags that hang from the back of
the student’s chair) for personal supplies, and creating distinct “group” workspace (see Figure 3). She
Published by CORE Scholar, 2010
7
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 5 [2010], Art. 6
ranked the category “clear pathways” as having the least effect on disruptive behavior. Specifically, the
teacher perceived that rearranging the teacher’s and students’ desks had little impact on the level of
disruptive behavior in the classroom.
The teacher ranked the category “personal and group work space” as having the greatest impact
on levels of academic engagement. She continued to rank the remaining three categories in the
following order from next greatest to least effective: cleared pathways, organization, and visual-auditory
stimuli.
Post-intervention interview. After completing the MRS-T, the teacher answered all 10 openended questions in the post-intervention interview. The teacher responded that she liked the new
arrangement of the classroom furniture as it allowed the students to see the board simultaneously. This
report is consistent with her rankings of effectiveness of modifications on academic engagement. If she
were able to do this intervention again, she reported that she would have requested smaller desks to
save on personal space and increase group space. The teacher stated that she will use the modifications
she learned from this study to design her classroom in the beginning of the school year next fall. She
believed the students definitely benefitted from the classroom modifications, especially the personal
chair bags and reorganization of classroom storage area. Not only would she recommend this
intervention to other teachers, but also she reported that other teachers used her re-designed
classroom as a model for rearranging their classroom furniture.
Students’ Perceptions
Student perception survey. Overall classroom mean percentages were calculated across the
three phases: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention (see Table 1). The percentages of
students who circled a happy face for each of the 5-items across all three phases are reported in figure
2. A summary of the figure shows that from the pre-intervention to post-intervention phase the
students felt increasingly happier about their classroom environment, from 58% to 79% respectively.
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss5/6
8
Fullerton and Guardino: Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classro
This also remains true for their ability to “walk around my classroom without running into kids or things
(chairs, books, shelves)”, 50% to 71% respectively.
There were two areas where students where more “content” during the intervention phase
than during the post-intervention phase. Sixty-seven percent of the students felt happy about their
group space during the intervention phase, whereas only 36% continued to feel happy during the postintervention phase. This is also true of “knowing where everything belongs in my classroom”. Eighty
percent of the students circled the happy face during the intervention phase, whereas only 71% circled
the happy face during the intervention phase. Although both of these “happy” percentages declined
during the post-intervention phase, both percentages are an average of 12% higher than during the preintervention phase.
The students’ perception of their ability to work quietly at their desk declined from preintervention in both the intervention and post-intervention phases. During pre-intervention 75% of the
student felt “happy” about working quietly at their desk, while intervention and post-intervention
percentages were 40% and 57% respectively. Possible reasons for this decline will be discussed in the
following section.
Limitations
Although the results of this study are positive, the limitations should be recognized and
reviewed with caution. The sample size was small with one class and one teacher participating in the
study. A larger sample of students and teachers would improve the generalization of the results. Student
absenteeism, tardiness, suspension, removal for testing or tutoring, altered the number of respondents
during each phase. The results from the student survey are limited because item response means were
averaged across the class, not allowing for individual student perception changes. In future studies,
assigning students a number would allow individual and groups of student scores to be compared across
phases. Item number five of the student perception survey should be changed from “our group space
Published by CORE Scholar, 2010
9
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 5 [2010], Art. 6
makes me feel” to “I can do work in our group space”. A semantic change will provide important
information on whether or not students can stay on-task in-group areas. Finally, once the modifications
were in place the teacher had difficulty sustaining the changes. For example, the students requested the
carrels during individual work time, but the teacher did not use them consistently.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of classroom modifications on
teacher and student perceptions of their fourth grade inclusion classroom. The findings indicate that the
teacher positively perceived the modifications and believed they helped improve student behaviors. The
students perceptions also changed as overall they were more content with the new arrangement.
Teachers would benefit from effectively using their classroom environment to positively manage
student behavior. The results of this study emphasize that modifying the classroom has an impact on the
teacher’s perception of the environment. More research is warranted to determine if including teacher
training on how to utilize the modifications increases the effectiveness of the intervention. Teachers
need to be a partner in the change and must be able to sustain the changes until desired results
(increase in on-task behavior and decrease in disruptive behavior) are attained (Diamantes, 2002). In
addition, the students’ perceptions of the classroom are good indicators of what might need to be
changed. Including their perceptions in the modifications may increase engagement in the learning.
The students’ perceptions of their environment are an important dimension of the current study
and future research. Students’ positive perception of the environment decreased in two areas during
the post-intervention phase (group space and everything belongs). This could be related to two factors:
(1) the number of students increased thus making the group work more crowded, and (2) the teacher
did not specifically model how to use the chair bags and study carrels. This may also explain the drop in
the students’ positive perception of working quietly at their desk. At the start of the intervention phase
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss5/6
10
Fullerton and Guardino: Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classro
each student was given a carrel to personalize. As the intervention continued the teacher stopped using
the carrels even when a student requested it.
In the future, the teacher suggested that the researchers add a component to the intervention
that would teach her how to utilize some of the modifications to better maximize their usefulness. For
example, while the individual desk carrels were helpful, it was difficult for the teacher to determine how
and when to use them. With additional support from the researchers, the teacher could be trained to
use the carrels effectively. In conclusion, the teacher reported that the modifications changed her
behavior, as she was able to see to that the students wanted to work once they were given the chair
bags and carrels.
Overall, the modifications had a positive impact on the learning environment. The children had
clearly defined group spaces that they used effectively. Although there was an increase in the number of
students, the pathways remained clear (could walk without running into things, move between
individual and group areas without contacting another student). This study has shown that when
classrooms undergo small changes, meaningful positive perceptions by students and teachers are
gained.
References
Diamantes, T. Improving instruction in multicultural classes by using classroom-learning environments.
(2002). Journal of Instructional Psychology v. 29 no. 4 277-82.
Dodge, D. T. & Colker, L. J. (1996). The creative curriculum (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies.
Gazin, A. (1999). Keeping them on the edge of their seats. Instructor , 109 (1), 28-30.
Geiger, B. (2000). Discipline in K through 8th grade classrooms. Education (Chula Vista, Calif.), 121(2),
383-393.
Published by CORE Scholar, 2010
11
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 5 [2010], Art. 6
Guardino, C. (2008). Modifying the classroom environment to reduce disruptive behavior and increase
academic engagement in classrooms with students who have a hearing loss. (Doctoral
Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (AAT 3304010)
Hadi-Tabassum, S. (1999). Assessing students' attitudes & achievements in a multicultural & multilingual
science classroom. Multicultural Education, 7 (2), 15-20.
Johnson, L. (2006) Elementary School Students’ Learning Preferences and the Classroom Learning
Environment: Implications for Education Practice and Policy. The Journal of Negro Education, 75
(3), 506-518.
Kerry, M., & Nelson, C. (2002). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom. (4ed.) New
Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Footnotes
1[1]
Because the teacher in this study is female, the authors refer to the teacher as “she”. However, any
teacher could complete the rating scales.
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss5/6
12
Fullerton and Guardino: Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classro
Table 1
Pre-intervention, Intervention, & Post-intervention Percentages of Student Perception Survey
Pre-Intervention
N=12
Intervention
N=15
Perception Question
Happy
Unhappy
Happy
Classroom feel
58
42
60
Quiet work at desk
75
25
Group space feel
25
Items belongs
Walk Unobstructed
Published by CORE Scholar, 2010
Unhappy
Post-intervention
N=14
Happy
Unhappy
40
79
21
40
60
57
43
75
67
33
36
64
58
42
80
20
71
29
50
50
60
40
71
29
13
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 5 [2010], Art. 6
Table 2
Results of the Modification Rating Scale-Teacher (MRS-T) ranked from greatest (1) to least effectiveness.
Disruptive
Academic
Modifications
Behavior
Engagement
Visual-Auditory Stimuli
Straightened materials in several areas of the classroom
1
4
Straightened and reduced books in library area
4
2
Hung posters of role models & positive sayings
3
3
Added plants for sound buffer and add hominess to class
6
6
Rearranged computer area to minimize visual distractions
5
5
Pasted rules inside carrels
2
1
Add shelves to left of teacher’s desk
3
3
Organized all cabinets to reflect current curriculum use
2
2
Two squat shelves added under ½ moon main table
1
1
Individual Carrels
1
1
Added chair bags for personal supplies and “sponge” activities
3
2
Added table for a third “group” work space
2
3
Separated large area rug for 2 distinct “group” work areas
4
4
Moved reading area to center: more accessible & obvious reward
2
3
Rearranged area access to teacher’s desk
3
4
Rearranged desks
4
1
Moved ½ moon to front of classroom for accessibility
1
2
3
4
Organization
2
3
Privacy-Independent Work Space
1
1
Clear pathways
4
2
Organization
Personal & Group Work Space
Clear pathways
Reduce Visual Stimuli
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss5/6
Category Ranking
14
Fullerton and Guardino: Teacher and Students' Perceptions of a Modified Inclusion Classro
Figure 1. Survey used to determine students’ perception of their classroom environment during preintervention, intervention, and post-intervention phases.
1) My classroom makes me feel:
2) I can do quiet work at my desk:
3) Our group space makes me feel:
4) I know where everything belongs in my classroom.
5) I can walk around my classroom without running into kids or things (chairs, books, shelves).
Published by CORE Scholar, 2010
15
Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 5 [2010], Art. 6
Figure 2. Percentage of students who circled “happy” during pre-intervention, intervention, and
post-intervention phases.
Pre-Intervention (N=12)
Intervention (N=15)
Post-Intervention (N=14)
Figure 3. Illustration of individual work space with carrels and group work space.
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss5/6
16